Zimmerman Hearing – 9am EST. Discussion Thread

Today the Defense and Prosecution will be back in court to discuss the various motions filed by both the Defense and the Prosecution:

Judge Nelson

Here are some *possible* Links to the Hearing:

Hat Tip Rumpole for the list.
About these ads
This entry was posted in George Zimmerman Open Thread, Mark O'Mara, media bias, Trayvon Martin, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

553 Responses to Zimmerman Hearing – 9am EST. Discussion Thread

  1. Reptile says:

    Stay strong George.
    Don’t be intimidated by this.

    Like

  2. LetJusticePrevail says:

    Well, after having read Mr Crump’s affidavit, I can see there are no revelations there. Just a point by point recap of what he has already claimed, and what we all knew he would say. Basically, “That’s his story, and he’s sticking to it”. Frankly, I don’t see THIS judge allowing a deposition of Ben Crump. Anyone disagree with my appraisal of Crump’s statement, or what Judge Nelson will rule in regards to him being deposed by the defense?

    Like

    • howie says:

      Paragraph 14. Clearly false according to the police accounts.

      Like

    • hooson1st says:

      LJP

      I think that MOM/West, would want more detail on how DeeDee was uncovered and exactly when.

      Note in Crump’s affidavit, he is careful to point how careful and limited his questions to her were.

      He did not ask her (nor did BDLR later) what she might have learned or been exposed to as to alleged “facts” of the case via the (sensational) TV news coverage and the social media links.

      Like

      • LetJusticePrevail says:

        “I think that MOM/West, would want more detail on how DeeDee was uncovered and exactly when”

        Of COURSE they do, just like the rest of us! But here’s the problem: Without coming right out and stating their suspicions, they have no way to pressure Judge Nelson to
        rule that a deposition is necessary. It seems OBVIOUS that she knows *EXACTLY* what they suspect, but wants to force them to accuse another “officer of the court” of wrongdoing, something she already knows they have no proof of! Would you, if you were in Mark’s shoes, open yourself up to the legal repercussions of making such an accusation without absolute proof that it occurred? But, short of doing JUST THAT, they are forced to let Judge Nelson sit there, with that vapid look on her face, and calmly rule that there seems to be no reason to depose Ben Crump.

        “Note in Crump’s affidavit, he is careful to point how careful and limited his questions to her were”

        No, that point did not escape me. He has been *specific* to point out that he was *specifically vague* (now THERE’S an oxymoron if I ever made one) and has cleverly built himself an alibi should there be any revelations about her statement, or if she is somehow impeached while on the witness stand.

        “He did not ask her (nor did BDLR later) what she might have learned or been exposed to as to alleged “facts” of the case via the (sensational) TV news coverage and the social media links”

        And, again, by doing so, both Crump and BDLR have further insulated themselves from any potential accusations of wrongdoing. A simple case of ignoring the obvious circumstances of the “real world.” They KNOW she wasn’t in an insulated cocoon, and allowed themselves a further alibi through their “willfull ignorance.” It is all about PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY.

        But, knowing all of this and proving it in court, to the degree that will COMPEL Judge Nelson to allow a deposition of Ben Crump, are two entirely different matters. I don’t know how the “virtual cake” thing works, but I would be willing to bet a baker’s dozen of them to a single glazed donut that Crump is never deposed by the defense team as a result of any ruling by Judge Nelson.

        Moving right along, I also wanted to mention that Ben Crump managed to slip something ELSE into his *crapadavit*: He specifically mentions that Witness 8 was ill and did not attend the WAKE, but MAKES NO MENTION OF THE FUNERAL. This is NOT the first time he has done this, and while listening to the recording of BDLR’s interview of witness 8 on 4/2, I see that BDLR glossed over that subject, leaving himself (and by extension Crump) deniability about whether or not DeeDee was at the actual funeral. BDLR did not clarify the point of whether she was answering that she had missed BOTH the wake and funeral, or if she was only saying that she missed the wake. At this point, any statement made by the cousin, whatEVER his name is, while not under oath, will not amount to a hill of beans, and is one that I am sure they have already prepared a rebuttal to. It will probably turn out that the cousin will say he was mistaken, and that the girl he talked to was NOT witness 8. I mean seriously, does anybody really think that a member of THAT family will ever have the moral integrity to stand up in public and say something that will threaten their Dream Scheme?

        Like

  3. eastern2western says:

    Judging from the crump affidavit, dd sounds like some thing from pure desperation. basically, after told that zimmerman was defending him self, the martins suddenly discovered the great dd from a phone record and they were the first ones spoken to this critical witness while no body was there as a neutral witness. Just from their endless media interviews where they declared that they would not rest until zimmerman is convicted of murderring trayvon, this dd has fabrication writting all over it. lets see what happens next month.

    Like

    • hooson1st says:

      I see no desperation, just Crump adhering to his game plan.

      Like

      • howie says:

        It is on paper…and filed in a court…:)

        Like

      • Unicron says:

        He meant the original appearance of Deedee was an act of desparation, and possibly an act of outright fabrication. I, too, think this is possible. Crump has even said “nothing was happening! we had to do something!” (paraphrased) re: Deedee. The idea is, they weren’t getting the guy who shot their son (client’s son) charged with anything, it was headed toward a grand jury that was probably going to decide not to file charges as Norm Wolfinger decided… and they fabricated this “ear witness” Deedee, waiting til GZ’s account (rough form) was in the media so they could base it off his, adding just enough to make it seem like charging might be appropriate.

        I’m not sure I believe the theory that she is a fabricated witness, but there is definitely a lot about her, how she came to be involved in this case, who she would and would not talk to and when (avoiding cops) and the deal with her being a minor or not… and most importantly, the fact that she never made any effort to contact anyone the night she supposedly heard this… these things do make one wonder.

        Like

        • DeeDee stated herself in that interview that her cellphone wasn’t working properly. So how did she hear the ‘grass’ but she didn’t hear screams for help? She was 286 miles away on a cellphone in inclement weather. She also states that Trayvon ‘put his Hoodie on’ how did she know? Did she see him do that? What about the 711 video that shows he had it on the whole time? Let’s talk about those khaki ‘tan’ pants he was wearing and they found him at the scene in stonewashed blue jeans. Let’s see this DeeDee in person and hear what she has to say about NOT calling 911 or Trayvon’s parents right away if she thought he was in danger. LIES

          Like

  4. xballer52 says:

    Let me get this straight; according to the Affidavite, Mr. Crump would like us to believe that the parents of Witness #8 (Dee Dee) were reluctant to allow their daughter to be interviewed in person by Crump, but were OK with their daughter conducting an interview telephonically with two members of the media present? OK……SUUUURE.

    The way the Affidavite is written, it leads one to belive that on March 19, Crump spontaneously contacts witness #8, and after a brief preliminary interview, the “formal” interview commences. Really? So they would like one to believe that there was NO interaction with Crump , any associate of Crump, or any representative of the Martin family prior to March 19. Please read the section entititled “Telephonic Recording and Interview of Witness #8, and let me know if it makes any sense. Specifically sections H, I, J.

    In Section I, Crump indicates that he did not want to know any of the substance regarding the conversation between DeeDee and Trayvon on the 26th. Again, he would like you to believe that he arranged for an interview with DeeDee and for the media to be present during said interview, but had NO IDEA what DeeDee was going to say.

    This entire Affidavit is a bunch of bologna, and further confirmes in my mind that either DeeDee herself is a fabrication, or the contents of her conversation with Trayvon is a fabrication.

    Like

    • boricuafudd says:

      I had a thought, is been nagging me I can’t prove it yet. We have not seen any confirmation that a conversation between TM and DD took place at the time indicated. What if what DD is describing is an incident prior to the encounter with GZ. We have a long period of time between the time TM left the 7-Eleven and the time GZ reported seeing him, what if what DD described happened earlier. I have seen nothing to corroborate the times.

      Like

    • hooson1st says:

      There is still a lot that is not known. Perhaps Tracy called W8 first, and related the substance of her knowledge to Crump, who then could question her without having to get the requisite knowledge out of her, since Gutman was present.

      And didn’t Gutman claim to have multiple contacts w/W8?

      Like

      • John Galt says:

        “Perhaps Tracy called W8 first, and related the substance of her knowledge to Crump”

        And then lied to O’Steen and BDLR on April 2 about having not spoken with W8 about the substance of her knowledge?

        “Martin advised that [W8] didn’t go into any details of the phone call. Martin told [W8] that his attorney would contact her.”

        Like

    • John Galt says:

      “In Section I, Crump indicates that he did not want to know any of the substance regarding the conversation between DeeDee and Trayvon on the 26th.”

      It occurs to me that the alleged contents of the prep call might have been altered and expanded / detailed to comport with the duration of the call evidenced by a phone record. Very curious that Crump, Sybrina and Tracy unanimously state that they never talked with Dee Dee about the substance of her testimony prior to the Crump recording, yet nonetheless had Gutman and assistant on hand for the recording.

      Like

      • hooson1st says:

        I have learned that in these types of affidavits, it is often fruitful to look in the direction of what the affiant does not say, as opposed to plumbing in the direction of what the affiant swears to.

        Like

  5. rumpole2 says:

    State v. Zimmerman: Pre-Trial Hearing (FULL) – Feb 5, 2013

    Like

  6. waltherppk says:

    There are legal principles which are relevant and applicable to remedying time delays caused by any failure to promptly disclose in discovery the information being sought or the information which there exists a duty to disclose. Delay of process, Contempt of Court, Doctrine of Equitable Tolling are things involved particularly where the delays have prejudicial effect upon preparation of the defense case. If the state had a “strong case” like they have falsely represented that they do when seeking excessive bond early in the case, then all the discoverable information in the states custody control or possession would have been promptly and completely supplied very early in the proceedings, and the state would be chomping at the bit to complete discovery and get through pretrial hearings and go to trial as soon as possible, before the case becomes stale as an investigation and events in the investigation become a distant memory in the minds of witnesses. The very FACT that discovery has been such a long and dragged out and delayed piecemeal process having missing information and obstructions and delays speaks volumes to the fact the state has a weak case or no case at all. The supervising and babysitting of discovery by a judge is NOT the way discovery is supposed to happen, because all the lawyers should be able to manage discovery quickly and efficiently IF discovery is being conducted in good faith it should not take months and months of jumping through hoops with court orders to secure subpoena compliance and production compliance for documents and depositions and the certifications as evidence for all discoverable information. “Missing” forensic report data like the GPS location data for the phones, and the antics regarding Witness 8 audio recordings for statements made to Crump or Gutman or BDLR are nonsense that should have been resolved months ago and would have been completed except for deliberate discovery delay by the state or by cohorts of the state in obstructing discovery in order to hinder defense preparation to which George Zimmerman has a constitutional right AND is supposed to be provided by due process of law. Seeking a continuance based upon good grounds that discovery has been delayed and obstructed was an entirely valid motion, and the judge may have stepped in it by denying a continuance since the discovery delays are occurring in a discovery which the Court itself is supervising in order to alleviate delays and omissions as are occurring anyway. Failing to grant a continuance was a bad ruling which is appealable given the circumstances. The discovery delays are prejudicial against defense preparation for the immunity hearing which appears to be a clear indication of bias by the Court enabling the very discovery delays to continue as would interfere with defense preparation for the immunity hearing and result in grudging compliance with Discovery only in the eleventh hour before trial, instead of completing discovery well in advance of the immunity hearing AND well in advance of trial like is supposed to be done.

    Again, IF the state ever had such a strong case as it has falsely claimed, ALL discoverable information would have been “cards on the table” a long time ago, and this dog and pony show, this goat rodeo of “Delayed and Obstructed and Incomplete Discovery” would NOT be occurring now.

    Like

    • howie says:

      I bet in the end it is continued. Just not right now. There is four months of back and forth to go.

      Like

      • waltherppk says:

        The GPS data for the phones and the ping logs for February 26, 2012 are key forensic evidence.which really should have been available with and prior to the time of the probable cause affidavit. That evidence still being missing is no trivial issue. And it is an issue which dovetails with all the mystery about Witness 8. The phone forensic discovery which is still being sought is what should have been a priority disclosure in the initial discovery. So it is highly suspicious that what should have obviously been the first Discovery provided remains undisclosed while the hour is getting late towards an immunity hearing. All the reported technical “difficulty” about providing such forensic evidence discovery is not believable, when there are forensics experts in Florida who could have supplied the information including the ping logs within a few days or even less in the near time frame of the shooting. The phone data particularly is not rocket science needing the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena or silicon valley to be involved.

        Like

        • myopiafree says:

          Hi Walther – For me +1,000. Yes you have it, EXACTLY. They want to bury all data that 1) DeeDee was coached and lying 2) The phone was on “stand by” for the last 20 minutes. 3) The bombshell is that Crump is allowed to lie, lie, lie and hide everything with the complicity of the Judge. I have no doubt but that Cell phone was DEAD, as is the case against George Zimmerman. This trial is identical to the NiFong farce.

          Like

      • waltherppk says:

        Yeah it may be that a continuance does get granted later if the discovery delays are continued. The forensic experts don’t need much time generally once they have access to the information to which their expert analysis is applied. For example the analysis of the phone data may only take a few minutes for an expert, once they have access to the data.

        Like

      • woohoowee says:

        “I bet in the end it is continued. Just not right now.”

        If this happens then the opinion I now hold regarding Florida elected officials interfering with discovery, through the Judge, will be proven incorrect. Hoping you are right :-)

        What I cannot grasp is why Judge Nelson appears to be ignoring what seems to be the prosecutions intentional withholding of discoverable evidence, delays, etc.

        Like

  7. raiikun says:

    Oops, posted this in the wrong thread first.

    Only had a chance for a very quick read through the Crump affidavit, but as far as I can tell, Crump makes no mention in it of what he told HLN, about Tracy Martin finding her on the phone bill, calling her, arranging an interview with law enforcement, W8′s parents canceling it, and rescheduling the interview with the media instead.

    Trying to find the other Crump segment with HLN where he talks about it. Was any of that in the affidavit that I missed? Are there any otherof Crump’s media statements that imply that they found W8 prior to 3/18?

    Like

    • boricuafudd says:

      We are supposed to believe that Crump the lawyer for the family, arranged to have a reporter present while he interviewed a possible witness, that could conceivably derail his whole case, without knowing what she was going to testify to. I buy that for a penny.

      Like

  8. ottawa925 says:

    I’m not reading through Crump’s mess … not in the mood … did he say who was present at the interview?

    Like

  9. nettles18 says:

    What would have happened today if Judge Nelson was consistent in her admin. ruling that she won’t consider things filed within 48 hours of the hearing? The Lawyer for Crump delivered that affidavit to the court and advised her Crump would not be at his scheduled deposition today. Could she have ordered Crump jailed until he complied with her order to be deposed?

    Like

  10. John Galt says:

    @ 43:10

    So, after prior communications with MOM and receiving a notice for Crump’s deposition, “officer of court and senior member of the bar” Blackman waltzes in and orally (Nelson said “ore tenus”) requests a protective order, which Nelson begins to grant from the bench, without seeing any written filing regarding the matter, and without even hearing from the defense.

    Be very afraid.

    Like

    • Chip Bennett says:

      …which Nelson begins to grant from the bench, without seeing any written filing regarding the matter, and without even hearing from the defense.

      Be very afraid.

      Wasn’t Lester forced to recuse himself, for less-serious prejudice than this?

      I think the tack taken by the defense from here forward will tell us what they’ll be trying to accomplish: a Richardson hearing, a Nelson recusal, immunity hearing (and potential appeal), or trial conviction (and subsequent appeal).

      Nelson’s current rulings may not be appealable until after trial, but documented evidence that those rulings are clearly biased against the defense could easily compel the 5th DCA to tell her to recuse.

      Like

      • LetJusticePrevail says:

        “Nelson’s current rulings may not be appealable until after trial, but documented evidence that those rulings are clearly biased against the defense could easily compel the 5th DCA to tell her to recuse”

        Agreed, but I am not so certain that the 5th DCA will order her to recuse. She is ALREADY the third judge and accusations of “Judge Shopping” have already been circulated. The DCA might find themselves accused of supporting a shopping expedition, and feel compelled to rule against another petition for a writ of prohibition. If it goes that route, I smell the involvement of the FL Supreme Court.

        Like

    • partyof0 says:

      I find it odd…Blackman is addressed by Judge Nelson right as he stands up and IS addressed by Judge Nelson as Mr Blackman….both have never met…never been to her court he retorts….but you’d think they had been sweethearts at one time….basic 3rd to 5th grade level courtroom proceedings…well I would say I felt like I was watching a Play in which the starring roles were played by at best maybe 4th graders….I know they’re above K thru 2 though…but amazing how much attention she is going to give this “last minute” affadavit from Crup’s Lawyer…whew!!!!

      Like

    • howie says:

      I don’t understand. She is the one who ordered it herself. On a specific matter. Crump is filing an affidavit purported to address the matter she wanted. His depo was going to be limited to that matter anyway I think. I don’t think she will order that other depo of matters unrelated to what she wanted to know are precluded.

      Like

      • John Galt says:

        But West pointed out that the defense can depose Crump per 3.220 (h) (A), regardless of the intended scope of Nelson’s prior designation of Crump as a witness under 90.615. At that point, it becomes the burden of the party seeking the protective order (Crump – Blackman) to demonstrate good cause as to why the deposition should not be taken. The scope of a 3.220(h)(A) deposition is any subject matter reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. I don’t know how it goes in Florida, but lawyers are frequently deposed in other jurisdictions. Objections as to attorney-client privilege and attorney-work product doctrine are raised on a question by question basis. The lawyer must respond to questions seeking non-privileged information. If the party deposing the lawyer doesn’t agree with the objections, they have a transcript prepared and file a motion to compel answers to specific questions. I don’t see the fact that Crump has voluntarily inserted himself into a conflict situation as good cause to block his deposition.

        Like

        • howie says:

          Right. But it will happen in the defense deposition. This one was made by the judge herself to get the answer to a certain question. She still has not ruled I don’t think. She is going to check it t see if it satisfies what she wanted. Not what the defense wants. I think.

          Like

        • jello333 says:

          You know why I’m not terribly concerned by any of the games the prosecution has played with discovery, and the ridiculous rulings by Nelson? Because, unless I missed a major news flash, the Constitution is still the “law of the land” in this country. And one of the bedrocks is that a defendant in a criminal case has a right to any and all evidence that may help him in his defense.

          Let’s say a defense lawyer declares, “There are specific witnesses and evidence that I need to interview and research before I’m ready to go to trial. But the prosecution has, so far, prevented us from doing so. So even though a trial date has been set for the near future, there is no way we will be ready by that time. If we go to trial on that scheduled date, we will be doing so without yet having access to all the information my client needs to defend himself. And THAT will be a gross violation of his Constitutional rights.”

          How can a judge just say, “Too bad, we’re going to trial anyway” ? If he/she DOES say something like that, then what would an appeals court — which, by the way, is largely set up SPECIFICALLY to deal with Constitutional issues — do about it? Seems to me a major slap-down of the trial judge (and prosecution) would be in order.

          So if, at some point, MOM (or West) stands up in front of Nelson and says, “We will NOT be ready by that date, and we have no intention of allowing my client to go to trial before we ARE ready”… THEN what happens? Actually, I don’t believe that’s how it will go down. I believe they’ll take their complaints to the appeals court before then.

          Like

          • kathyca says:

            totally agree. This is a serious charge and there is already error all over the place. If it wasn’t Florida and this particular case, I’d be inclined to think that the Judge was prepared to grant immunity and knows already that there is no need for all the trial prep — plus wanting to save Crump/Corey/BDLR’s backsides in the process.

            And, if that’s not the case, I agree with Howie that she will grant a continuance at a later time. She almost HAS to and if she doesn’t, she will be reversed.

            I swear, if I ever ran into Crump or Natalie Jackson in court or a bar function, I would be hard pressed not to spit on them. They literally make me ill. It would not be pretty! #completedisgracetotheprofession

            Like

            • jello333 says:

              Thanks, that means a lot to me, coming from you. Oh, and I’ll hand a “totally agree” right back at ya. ;) And that includes the last part… NO DOUBT. A very good chance I’d wind up in jail if I saw either of those scumbags in person.

              Like

    • partyof0 says:

      I just find it astonishing how MUCH she is trying to protect a man “Crump” who isn’t EVEN on trial….protecting this individual from just a deposition….much more than she is giving a man who IS on trial for his life….

      Like

      • John McLachlan says:

        Perhaps Crump could implicate others, more powerful and more widely known, if he were ever to be facing any criminal or even civil charges, in his own right.

        Such parties may have concerns that even if he were willing to take a fall for the team, for which he would probably be well compensated, he could inadvertantly reveal information which was not intended to be made public, when under cross-examination.

        Perhaps the judge wishes to prevent the opportunity for such possible embarassment to ever occur.

        Like

  11. howie says:

    I don’t think this is bad at all. What she is talking about in the Crump deposition relates to the extent the she herself ordered. He was not a state or defense witness. He can still be included as a witness. Another deposition can be filed by the defense themselves. I also think a further continuance can still be granted. BDLR seemed open to a couple months. She granted some important subpoena’s the defense needs.

    Like

  12. auscitizenmom says:

    I may have misunderstood, but I thought one of the things Crump’s lawyer was requesting was that the court accept his statements in that 15 page document in liew of being deposed by MOM. I had the feeling that he really doesn’t want to be questioned and have to give answers on the fly. Too many chances to make a misstatement when you are lying.

    Like

    • mung says:

      That is exactly what he was saying.

      Like

      • auscitizenmom says:

        Wow, you mean I got it right?

        Like

        • LetJusticePrevail says:

          That was my interpretation, too. Crump wants to retain control of what questions he has to answer because he does NOT want to be cornered into answering specific questions. It goes without saying (but I will say it anyway) HE IS HIDING SOMETHING THAT WILL BLOW THE PROSECUTION’S STAR WITNESS RIGHT OUT OF THE WITNESS STAND.

          Like

          • howie says:

            He will try to claim it is part of his work product on the civil case and privileged. I wonder how the defense will address that?

            Like

            • woohoowee says:

              “He will try to claim it is part of his work product on the civil case and privileged. I wonder how the defense will address that?”

              First, MOM has to find out when/how the State was made aware of W8. BDLR stalling again and the Judge thinks it’s perfectly fine for MOM to get that info from W8!?

              Like

              • howie says:

                It was not part of a police investigation. The state does not want to give it up. Hmmm. Very Fishy. Besides. How would Wit. 8 even know? It will have to be another motion.

                Like

                • mung says:

                  The way I see it is, they ask her when she was first contacted and when she first talked to someone besides Crump. Then they go back to the state and say, OK when did you first become aware of her. The state will balk and so they will have to file an emergency motion.

                  Like

            • John Galt says:

              Ideally, with a prima facie showing of the crime-fraud exception, piercing all privileges.

              Like

            • kathyca says:

              waiver…big time…when you take your witness to Matt Gutman?

              Like

    • howie says:

      He is trying to answer her questions in the matter w/o having to be deposed. If she accepts the affidavit so be it. Omara can till depose him on other matters I think. I think his depo would have been limited anyway by what the judge wanted him to answer. nothing else. He is her witness at this point.

      Like

    • John Galt says:

      Maybe he can request that Blackman answer questions for him at his deposition, after consultation, kind of a team deposition.

      Like

      • boricuafudd says:

        That was my thought, too.

        Like

      • nettles18 says:

        I do believe Mr. Blackwell contradicted himself. He had been in Tallahassee from Wednesday to Friday of (50:00 mark) and then told the Judge he couldn’t file the affidavit sooner because he just saw Crump yesterday b/c Crump lives in Tallahassee. (50.43 mark) There was no reason this couldn’t have been filed inside the 48 hour window the Judge order the parties to adhere to.

        Like

        • ed greene says:

          If I remember correctly if the second bail hearing when Robert Zimmerman testified that it was his son that screamed for help . BDLR stated that both Tracy and Sybrina identified the voice screaming for help as Trayvon. BDLR at that time knew that Tracy said that was not Trayvon’s voice. BDLR lied to the court. Since he lied once how many other times has a lied to court. That is ground for being disbarred. If someone get link to that hearing and check to see what BDLR said about Tracy saying voice belonging to Trayvon, when he said as Serino stated and another witness that it was not. This might be grounds for dismissal. Prosecutor Lying to court.

          Like

        • selfdefenseadvocate says:

          nettles, I believe Blackwell said he couldn’t file the affidavit because it was still being typed last night. I remember 9 O’Clock PM being mentioned, but don’t recall if typing was still in progress at that time or if was being finished at that time. Anyway you slice it, the way it was handled was not fair to the defense. It is unbelievable that the court date for the defendant to present his self defense case to the court is a little over two months away! They won’t even have time to finish taking depos finished by then! Definitely no time to get experts (like O’Mara tried to tell the judge today). Wanna bet he files a new motion to get the court date changed for the SYG/self defense hearing? If denied, this is definitely this is where I see grounds for appeal. What do you think?

          Like

          • selfdefenseadvocate says:

            :oops: (sure wish we had an edit button! I saw that repeat just as I hit the button to send forever into cyberspace). :oops:

            Like

    • rumpole2 says:

      If he is talking or writing he is lying.
      But when its writing stuff he has the benefit of “Crap-check” installed on his computer.

      Like

  13. diwataman says:

    @19:58
    O’Mara: “I think, I hope you’re getting the flavor of at least my side of the frustrations that we’re having with discovery.”
    @21:25
    Judge: “I don’t see any of your issues as insurmountable”

    I guess that settles any question of that regarding this judge.

    ——————-

    @20:15
    Judge: “On Oct 26th this court when we in session asked the parties when they would be ready for trial and the response was June 2013…”
    @21:36
    O’Mara: When you asked me in October when the case I thought it be ready, I told you I could not tell you, that I would not have that information available to me until we’re into discovery…I did not say that this case be ready in June. I specifically told you it was well too early for a case of this magnitude for me to give you that information.”

    2:18:18 Oct 26th hearing
    Judge: “Okay so what we have, we have a trial date of June 10th…”
    O’Mara: “That sounds good.”

    Good luck with that one Mark.

    Like

    • waltherppk says:

      Doh …a foot in mouth moment.

      Like

    • rumpole2 says:

      On the off chance that I pass an e-bakery say… late April… is there any particular type of cake you prefer?

      Like

    • John Galt says:

      @ 2:16:40 MOM states that he needs to have all the discovery done before the immunity hearing. Obviously, if the State stonewalls discovery, it can’t be completed by the defense.

      Like

    • nettles18 says:

      This isn’t the hearing the agreed to June 10th. I think that was the one before this hearing. In this hearing the worked backwards from the already decided June 10th date and scheduled everything else.

      I do recall Mr. O’Mara having some concerns committing to a date this far out with the trouble he was experiencing with discovery matters.

      Like

    • LetJusticePrevail says:

      I see your point in regards to Mark’s “That sounds good” statement, but want to also point out his comments prior to that point, when discussing the deadlines for other motions, and their juxtapositions to a trial date: (start at 2:15:30)

      Judge Nelson: I’d like to get some idea about what you think you’re going to need to complete your discovery, as far as a timetable is concerned. Sometimes we work backwards. We have a June 10th trial date. Any motions could be filed and heard 30 days prior to the trial. Does that seem reasonable to both sides?

      BDLR: From the state’s perspective, I guess this depends on what type of motion we’re talking about. If we’re talking about some type of self defense motion I would suggest maybe prior to that, maybe in April, maybe, the first part of April. That will give us a buffer between the trial date.

      Judge Nelson: (To O’Mara) Do you have a comment about that?

      MO’M: “Yes. (laughing) How could I not? (BDLR chortles in background) I like the idea of having a work back from the trial schedule, so 30 days before a trial, fine. A self defense immunity hearing, say, 45 days before. Here’s my only concern is that, my position is that before we schedule a self defense immunity hearing we’re going to have everything done. So, we need to push that off as far as we can. That means that all the discovery needs to be done. There’s not much that needs to be done, I would imagine, for our preparation between a self defense immunity hearing, should it not be granted, and a trial.”

      So yes, Mark did speak what you said, but I think he also qualified that agreement to mean an agreement to the time requirements between the motions and other things spoken to, and not simply to the trial date, itself. Also, any perceived agreement to the trial date was contingent on a good faith completion of discovery, which has clearly not been the case here.

      Like

      • diwataman says:

        I hear what you all are saying and that’s good that you provided a fuller context but at the end of the day it’s not going to matter. Who knows, maybe Mark will press the issue maybe he wont, he was successful in getting Lester off the case after all so I guess that’s something, I guess we’ll just have to wait and see on that.

        People want to remain hopeful and optimistic, I get that, I do have a little bit of that left in me as well but I can only go off what’s before us and well, it is what it is. Any allusions to a grander enterprise on the part of O’Mara I think are misplaced, until I actually see something aside from snippets regarding the prosecution peppered throughout motions for whatever they may be I’m sticking to how it is in actuality.

        I have no idea of the legal world so I can’t possibly predict what could happen. All I know is O’Mara was told by the judge that she ordered a schedule, I didn’t call her a schedule nazi months ago for laughs so O’Mara better get to shakin’ on discovery or file something because in reality, while June may be months away, in terms to what needs to be done it might as well be tomorrow.

        Like

        • rumpole2 says:

          I always did have regard for your (pessimistic) view, but did try to maintain at least a lean towards a view a bit more positive. In essence I kept thinking that surly the penny would drop and Nelson would have a few stern words, and perhaps even make a few threats towards BDLR to stop the blatant obfuscation. After today I don’t see that happening… Madam Nelson has a timetable and she’s just going to crack the whip on scheduling and not other issues

           photo dom2_zps055dba45.gif

          Like

          • LetJusticePrevail says:

            “Madam Nelson has a timetable and she’s just going to crack the whip on scheduling and not other issues”

            Yes, it certainly seems that her one and only goal is to see this thing over, and the sooner, the better. D-Man was right about her, and his concern over Mark’s snail’s pace was spot on, long before the rest of us caught on. BDLR isn’t going to change a thing about what he is doing, because Nelson his playing right along with him. There is a train coming down the tracks, and Nelson is determined to see it reach the first station right on time. I hope that MO’M has a contingency plan for whatever expert witnesses that he plans to call, and rolls it out very quickly.

            PS: The dominatrix is cute, but somehow my minds eye keeps putting Nelson’s face on it, and the resulting effect is disturbing, to say the least!

            Like

          • myopiafree says:

            As Nelson insists – the flogging will continue – until moral improves. LOL.

            Like

      • jello333 says:

        “That means that all the discovery needs to be done.”

        Exactly. George, or ANY defendant, has a RIGHT to collect all the evidence he needs for trial BEFORE the trial begins. A judge can NOT simply say, “Sorry, you had enough time. I couldn’t care less that there’s still evidence out there that might help your client but you haven’t had time to get it yet. Too bad, so sad. Trial’s on!”

        I believe there’s a little thing called the Constitution that may come into play.

        Like

  14. mung says:

    So Jim Jones err I mean Leatherhead thinks that this whole thing was planned by MOM and West with the sole purpose of coming back and claiming that George is indigent, because they want off of the case.

    Like

  15. Lee says:

    I did not get to see the hearing today. But, by the looks of the posts above – that was a good thing. The whole thing sounds ridiculous. These are suppose to be people that seek truth and justice. Crump lists himself as involved with the Inns of the Court – aren’t they suppose to be about holding up high standards and ethics? Several of you brought up some great points about DD. A lawyer (and candidate for a judgeshipe) interviews a potential homicide ear witness, without getting her full name, age, and address. Does it over the phone because her parents are concerned – yet have no problem with a reporter being present. Was this conversation with DD’s parents recorded? I’m like the posters above – I don’t buy it. And Crump should certainly be deposed. By his own admission he stopped and stared the tape to take breaks and take questions – and by time ratio given – he sure took a lot of breaks. He may know of something that was said while the tape was off. By his own admission he sought out evidence for the arrest of Martin’s murderer – what else does he have? Being the professional he claims to be – you would think he would have conducted a more thorough interview. This was Martin’s “girlfriend” (that no one knew about/that he’s known since kindergarten) that supposedly heard the last moments of his life – you travel all around the country to give interviews to encourage the arrest and conviction of Zimmerman- but, can’t travel to DD’s home and convince her parents to let you talk one on one with her? B***S***! Courts apparently are not about justice – it is who you know and who can play the game better. And, would you please (MOM) stop talking about the TRAGIC DEATH….. – start worrying about the life and welfare of YOUR CLIENT and his family.

    Like

  16. diwataman says:

    Soooo, Crump was to be deposed today ay? No wonder why he, well his white attorney really, showed up in court today. I guess that was Natalie’s present, to show how they can avoid talkin. And boy oh boy, Crump sure does like to do a lot of talkin’ doesn’t he, except when it counts of course, lolz. And that judge, my oh my, protects everyone’s interests but the defenses.

    Like

    • rumpole2 says:

      But Crump (and his clients) want to do anything and everything they can to make sure all the ebedents comes out. He should perhaps DEMAND that somebody depose him so that the Martin/Fulton/et al “family” side of things comes out?

      Like

    • arkansasmimi says:

      Reminds me of his tweet. He will be in court , unless something happens (paraphrasing)

      Like

  17. Sharon says:

    I don’t understand the basis for being optimistic about yet another judge–or that things being done are forming the basis for an appeal.

    What reason is there to think that the BGI doesn’t also run the appeals court?

    Most of the comments seem to assume that the Florida courts operate under the rule of law. What is the reason for that assumption?

    Like

    • mung says:

      It is a lot harder to buy off 3 judges than it is 1.

      Like

      • boutis says:

        But to be on the safe side stay the heck out of Florida. Don’t visit, don’t buy anything made there (worthless warranties and contracts), and don’t let anyone you love or like do it either. They will do anything they want to you. And the citizens are apparently just dandy with it. The state needs to understand that is what this trial is projecting.

        Like

        • Sha says:

          boutis: I hear you loud and clear ! I always wonted to go to Florida and I was even plaining a trip at one time but had to cancel it . I don’t think I would wont to go now … :(

          Like

          • Angel says:

            “I always wonted to go to Florida and I was even plaining a trip at one time but had to cancel it . I don’t think I would wont to go now … :(

            I hear ya Sha!. I was thinking of going to Florida State University as they have a doctorate program I am interested in but not so sure about that anymore.

            Like

            • Sha says:

              Angel: Dont do it !!!! If you have to protect yourself they will charge you with murder and they don’t even have to have any (ebidence )…. If you don’t know somebody who knows somebody in the good old boys club you are done. Pick a school where you dont have to worry about the people in the legal system being worst then the criminals in the street with the only difference being it’s all legal. It’s a sad world we live in when this can happen in these days and times …… :(

              Like

        • mung says:

          I kind of live here so….

          Like

          • boutis says:

            Be very careful. In no way do I wish to insult the good people of Florida but they have an out of control legal and political system. If you have a corrupt legal system supported by a corrupt political system it will kill your economic base. Business cannot function without honest and efficient courts and government. Look at Illinois. It reaches the point where everyone but the crooks and their enablers leave. Then it is a downward spiral.

            Like

            • mung says:

              It’s a little less corrupt where I am. Probably no much, but a little.

              Like

              • LetJusticePrevail says:

                Mung, i lived in FL for 50 yrs and would be HAPPY to be back there. I now live in a more northern clime, which I prefer not to be specific about, and the corruption is just as bad, if not worse, here. The ONLY thing that makes FL SEEM so bad is that the SUNSHINE laws let you see what is actually happening, WHILE it happens! THAT is what is frightening, because you can SEE it coming, KNOW it is wrong, but can’t do a darn thing about it.

                Like

          • justfactsplz says:

            Aren’t we lucky? Boo hoo!

            Like

      • boricuafudd says:

        You only need 2, but Sharon has a point.

        Like

    • janc1955 says:

      Amen, Sharon. There are too many forces inside and outside Florida who want this to play out a certain way. I don’t think another judge will help the situation one bit. It’s scary.

      Like

      • Sharon says:

        I think it’s way past scary: it’s daily documentation of the power of BGI and other circle-the-wagons political interests in this nation, and it’s a demonstration of how deeply entrenched they all are.

        Multiply this X a couple thousand….and think about the judicial system (clear up to the Supremes) being this hijacked; think about the bureaucracies (state and federal) which are filled with determined idealogues who’ve been imposing their will on the nation via regulations for decades……

        Orwell and Ayn Rand had 20/20 vision: we can lay their photos down now and just look at what’s in front of us.

        The daily pile of evidence is very, very useful as a war cry for patriots and constitutionally-minded Americans. It’s mostly negative when considering George Z’s plight.

        I care for him and think of him only and always with compassion and concern. What has happened to him is serving as a tune for the trumpets to play as more and more rise up to march against our domestic enemies. I do not expect him to “rise up and play a part” as their hostage…he did not accept this role. It was thrust upon him only because he was the target moving across the screen at the moment they saw a crisis they could take advantage of.

        His personal courage and willingness to stay on his feet was something they did not expect. His willingness to stay on his feet is a choice. It’s a daily choice. That is Breitbart. And they absolutely did NOT see that coming.

        Don’t get scared. Get mad. This is one visible tumor on the body of our nation. Extrapolate. The bulls-eye that George occupies is way out on the edge of massive concentric circles of destruction that the BGI and the progs have been pushing and planning and implementing for years, decades, way over a century.

        This is one bulls-eye….way out on the edge. We are in a war for the survival of our nation.

        Like

        • auscitizenmom says:

          I agree totally.

          I have wanted to say something supportive and uplifting to George for a while now and just couldn’t find the words. I admire his quiet courage and strength in this time of so much adversity. I want him to know that it is not just the people who write in here that support him. I have friends who don’t follow CTH or any other site but they believe in his innocence. They have seen the evidence and believe in him. I pray God will continue to give him strength.

          Like

          • LetJusticePrevail says:

            Frankly, while I saw him sitting at the defense table, waiting to leave after MO’M and West had already gone, for a moment he looked like he was going to cry. Was I the only one who thought that?

            Like

        • janc1955 says:

          Sharon — I agree with every word. Unfortunately, I have a personality flaw in that I am easily overwhelmed, so I have to take things in smallish doses to avoid vapor lock. Believe me, I understand the bigger picture and while I am indeed scared, I’m also mad as hell. But in order for me to maintain my sanity and do what I need to do every day (primarily, earn a living and take care of those who are dependent on me), I have to practice “portion control” when it comes to how much I absorb and react to in a given day. But I do comprehend that GZ’s situation is in many ways a minor symptom (not taking anything away from George’s or his family’s suffering) of the life-threatening disease we face in our country today.

          Like

          • Sharon says:

            Totally understand the need for bite-size portions. Sometimes it’s all just too much…way too easy to get overwhelmed. Just about the time I’ve figured out “this is what I think I will do here” then I find out that someone else has already decided that it’s not the right thing to do!! Most of us have not had to fight for our nation’s life before, so we are all learning as we go. That’s why it’s good to have a Treehouse!! ;)

            Like

  18. yankeeintx says:

    I can’t believe she was stupid enough to admit that she is not going to allow for a 2nd deposition of Witness 8. What if W8 balks at answering questions and the defense needs to file a motion to compel. She has already made up her mind on how she will rule before they have even done the deposition.

    Like

  19. Angel says:

    Reminded today why I typically don’t substitute teach at a middle school. Thoroughly exhausted after managing behaviors of 4 classes with 36+ kids in each. I stood my ground though.

    Anyhoot, I am starting to sense that the ultimate resolution of GZ’s case is going the appellate route. I thought it amusing the judge says in one breath that MOM has enough time to prepare for trial but then asks for a postponement of Crump’s deposition.

    Like

  20. David says:

    Too funny how Natalie Jackson yaps away like an imbecile on twitter yet is such an overwhelming coward she has skipped three consecutive hearings

    Like

  21. Ron Callaway says:

    It ain’t just Florida that has crooked judges. Every court in America does what Eric Holder tells them to do if about race or Osambo eligibility.

    Like

  22. nettles18 says:

    What does Matt Gutman know that we don’t know? Today he reported Trayvon Martin was returning from a nearby deli.

    “Martin, 17, was shot and killed while walking home unarmed on Feb. 26, 2012, from a deli near his father’s fiancee’s house. Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch captain, has claimed the unarmed teen was acting suspicious and that he shot the teenager during a fight when the boy tried to get Zimmerman’s gun.”

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-loses-bid-delay-summer-murder-trial/story?id=18410933

    Like

    • HughStone says:

      There is a Boston Fish market Right next to the 7-11.

      Like

    • rooferx says:

      I believe that Gutman has another recording with inconsistent statements from DD. On the ABC recording she says “The man was watching him, so he put his hoody on” (Fits the false narrative. On the Crump recording and with BDLR she says something about the rain and that is why TM put the hoody up.
      A simple inconsistent statement, but if they were in the same room, recording the same thing, at the same time, why would that statement be different from one recording to the other?
      It’s all out there i the public. The ABC recordings for Gutman’s story and the Crump recording.
      They should say the same statements, right?

      Like

    • ftsk420 says:

      Why would he say deli everyone knows at this point it was 7-11. Unless they are gonna try and say the reason TM took so long to get back was because he stopped at a deli to. Dee Dee doesn’t mention a deli she does say corner store and I believe she was corrected for it.

      Like

  23. jordan2 says:

    Seem like this hearing has generated more interest in the case than ever. Anyone else having problems keeping up with all of the comments on all of the current threads?

    There is an awful lot to digest here. My only comment so far is this:

    Nelson is incompetent, doesn’t care about justice for George, or someone has got to her. What other explanation could there be for what happened today?

    Bernie brings “late” discovery into court today while she is addressing the issue as if nothing unusual is happening. Holy cow.

    Like

  24. Angel says:

    I personally think that if the Judge allows the affidavit in lieu of a deposition of Crump, that a precedent will be set. Witnesses to a criminal or civil case will just Fedex an affidavit of their self-serving testimony to their scheduled deposition. Hey if it works for Crump, it should work for them.

    Like

  25. Angel says:

    Looking at the video of court hearing, I am not feeling this judge. She seems to show utmost consideration to all the parties except the defense. She seems very condescending and shows irritation when she is dealing with their requests.

    Like

    • Sha says:

      Angel : I saw exactly what you did to ,but didn’t you love the fact that Omara and West didn’t take any crap off of her that seemed to really piss her off. She went above and beyond for everyone but the defense that was obvious . From the look on Omara’s face I think he is finally mad and ready for a good fight. West just looked like o.k. if this is the way you wont to play the game lets do it.

      Like

  26. Willie says:

    Hmm is anyone else having problems with the images on this
    blog loading? I’m trying to figure out if its a problem on my end or if it’s the
    blog. Any feed-back would be greatly appreciated.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s